Questions about the bible for evangelicals.?

Question

Evangelicals often quote the bible as supreme authority. I have seen it used for all sorts of reasons to prove or disprove things.

Why to they have absolute faith in the Bible above all other things.

I was looking at how we got the current new testement and it appears that Martin Luther chopped up a lot of of and take books out that didnt fit his ideology. He also wanted to get rid of James but other convinced him not to.

So if the current evagelical bible is incomplete how can you view that everything in it is full truth.

Statements about "dont add anything to this book" revelation and " useful for teaching etc" timothy were written before much of the rest of the new testement.

I would argue that the bible never says its the sole authority and instead says that the Church is the pillar of Truth.

I am not saying that the bible is wrong, I believe it is the word of God but need so be read in the light of church history.

1-400 years isint much history is it??

Luther took a lot of books out of the New Testement and also a number of passages out of the old testements.

Luther also was a predominant Jew hater, he heavily influenced Hitler

Answer 1

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170


You've got the right idea but some wrong information. Enjoy this fascinating book by Bart D. Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why." You'll be amazed.

.

Answer 2

"Why to they have absolute faith in the Bible above all other things."
Because the teachings of men, and of human-controlled organizations, cannot be trusted absolutely (always and at all times), but a well-respected and thoroughly analyzed translation can be trusted.

Although Luther did not remove the books of the so-called "Apocrypha" from his bible, he did separate them, titled this separate section "Apocrypha", and indicated that these books, although not inspired, "could be read profitably." (Source: HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 1996) It was not until the printing of the Geneva bible that some editions were distributed without these books.

"So if the current evagelical bible is incomplete how can you view that everything in it is full truth."
There is no such thing as "the evangelical bible", as far as I know. There is also no *conclusive* determination of which bible versions are complete. The 1611 King James Version, for example, contained 2 more books than most modern Roman Catholic (RC) bibles, and the NRSV, CEV and RSV expanded edition contain several books not included in any English RC version of which I am aware.
Another problem with this statement is that it is illogical. If everything in it is also included in a "complete" bible, and everything in a "complete" bible is "full truth", then everything in a so-called "evangelical bible" must *also* be "full truth". If you mean that the truth is incomplete in an abridged bible, this may be true. This does not mean that an abridged bible is less than wholly true, however.

"Statements about "dont add anything to this book" revelation and " useful for teaching etc" timothy were written before much of the rest of the new testement."
Although Paul's letters may pre-date several New Testament (NT) books, Revelation is likely the last book written. (Source: HarperCollins Bible Dictionary)

"I would argue that the bible never says its the sole authority and instead says that the Church is the pillar of Truth."
I wish that you would argue this by providing verses. Also, a verse which demonstrates *which* Church is *the* Church. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, is not truly the oldest Church (that honor most likely belongs to one of the Eastern Orthodox sects, which refused to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome but contain, geographically, the longest continuous Christian churches [congregations] in the world).

"I am not saying that the bible is wrong, I believe it is the word of God but need so be read in the light of church history."
Indeed, a knowledge of the early history of Christianity is very useful in understanding some of the things mentioned in the New Testament, and likewise the Old Testament and the history of those times.

I cannot determine with certainty your specific brand of Christianity, but I want you to answer this: do the teachings of the bible disagree with the teachings of your church? If not, then isn't the bible a good (pure and true) starting point for Christians?

Jim, http://www.life-after-harry-potter.com

Answer 3

Christians believe in sola scriptura , the Bible is the final authority on spiritual matters. We do not rely on flawed human reasoning to decide what is truth and what isn't. You need to do some more studying about Martin Luther, and not from catholic sources. He did not remove any books from the original canon or change any. He did have reservations about James, but it was because of his perception that it emphasized works over faith for salvation. You are aware that there were Bibles written before he translated his into German, such as the Geneva Bible? The Bible we use is complete and over 99% pure in comparison to the manuscripts we have. Could you quote book, chapter and verse where the Bible says the "church" is the pillar of truth? You do not need to know church history to understand Scripture, you just need the indwelling of the Spirit who guides us to all truth.

Answer 4

I have seen it used for all sorts of reasons to prove or disprove things. - Sadly this happens not just in Christianity but in those religions considered Christian cults, ie, Jehovahs' Witnesses and Christian Science, however, the Bible clearly states in Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
Also, along these same lines 2Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation

The current Evangelical incomplete. - The Catholic books known as the apocrypha are not considered inspired by God. 2Pe 1:21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Additionally you are giving too much weight to Luther for his excellent contributions. He did not put the "canon" together.

Revelation and Timothy were written late not early or before most of the N.T. with Revelation being commonly considered by scholars as the last book written.

Truly the church is the pillar, or support of Truth. Who else would propagate the gospel, but believers in the gospel?

Light of church history, the Bible should be read in light of the Cross, there is no other "light" but the light of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Answer 5

The Church is not the pillar of Truth. The Word of God is the truth. When people don't understand the truth, appear interpretations and from it denominations hating each other. History of church shows only that delusion were always, in those times and now not less. History of church can not cast a shadow on the Bible.

Answer 6

Being an Evangelist is being part of the ministries of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And they are born again Christians and are given the anointing, the Spirit of truth who leads them into all truth. 1Jn2:27. And the Holy Spirit leads them into the truth of the bible.

As a Christian myself, I know the Bible is the Word of God by the grace of the Spirit of Truth I am anointed with. This is how the bible Is written. As the Spirit moved through Godly man in the Old Testament & New Testament. And this is how it is discerned what books are in the Bible in the first place. By the confirmation of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit has shown me in my Spiritman why the apocryphal books in the Catholic cannon ware taken out. Because the Holy Spirit showed the error & contradiction to the bible that was in them. So? Also the Holy Spirit has shown me that the Mormon book isn't His book. Neither is the Koran.

Answer 7

OK, so eventually one is going through the Bible to God, I suppose its a way of reaching God as His message.

However I think the apostolic teaching is much to be preferred to various teachings of ecclesiastics. What I mean is that you can see influence of faulty philosophic teachings of the world around even affecting the views and intellectual output of a man as famed as St Augustine, colouring what he says, and making him teach in part non-christian ideas.

Then of course you have Popes some of whom have been very worldly, a few probably not even genuine 'saved' believers, somewhat dictating policies and ideas. So the official doctrine of the Catholic Church did get very corrupt at times (especially prior to and at the time of the Reformation). Better the raw bible than a corrupted interpretation - although certainly one would want to keep the teachings of great men of faith. (The bible with *good* interpretative aids is better than raw bible of course.)

So I think we should put a premium on the biblical teachings. If you overly and without a critical eye trust later stuff you can be pulled off into ideas that are not christian. OK some ideas are sensible and some are developing things rightly, and thats OK, but some are deluded by the delusions of the Age in which they were expressed.

We of course need the help of the Holy Spirit most of all ... and the Church as a whole (not just one ecclesiastical branch) can also teach us things. Note that people at the top of organisations are usually not the closest to God, and yet their power position can mean they try to dictate what is acceptable.
----------------
No particular denomination 'owns' believers. And their teachings are for the whole church; they trusted in Jesus for salvation, and want to bless others to the end of their salvation. So all denominations inherit the teachings of the saints. Attempts to hold close such teachings by a particular denomination would displease our Saviour. God has done some of his most wonderful things through the lowly .. its unwise for any denomination to elevate itself in the place that belongs to God.

Answer 8

Could you be any more uneducated?

You are mixing Evangelicals and Evangelical Lutherans. They are two different groups.

The term "Evangelicals" essentially defines a loose group of non-denominational churches with primarily baptist roots. Most of the "mega-churches" fit into this description.

Martin Luther protested actions by the Catholic Church and essentially started the Lutheran Church. The Lutheran Church has split several times, similarly to the way Catholicism has split into multiple groups, under one umbrella.

I could go on for several pages, but, you probably wouldn't read it anyway and anyone who is interested will read up on this themselves.

PS: Why this "all books were written 100 years after Christ" myth persists I will never understand. Anyone who knows anything about books in general knows this is horse hockey and that finding a first edition of a hand written, hand copied book is near impossible. The editions we have were first written a hundred years after Christ.

Answer 9

The Whole Bible all points to one thing. That Jesus Christ is the Messiah.... the Savior of the world. Chop up the Bible any way you want to. You can't get rid of the main point. Anyone can get saved by knowing only one verse in the Bible. John 3:16 has been shown on card board in every NFL televised game
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Thats all you need to know to be saved.
After you are saved you curiously want to know more so read the rest of it. But If you cant manage to find it all dont worry John 3:16 has you covered

Answer 10

The Canon of Scripture was established over 1000 years before Luther. It was ratified by the Council of Carthage in the 4th Century.